In the wake of the deadly attack on concert goers in Las Vegas Sunday evening, the National Rifle Association has called on the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to “immediately review” whether “bump stock” devices comply with federal law.
The statement, issued by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and chief lobbyist Chris Cox, head of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, got swift attention from the national press. Here is the statement:
“In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented.
“Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world.
“In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.
“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.
“To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.”
Since the horrific attack that left 59 dead and more than 500 injured, Capitol Hill has been in the midst of gun control hysteria. Anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced legislation to ban the devices, which retail for about $100-175.
Not surprisingly, in the wake of that announcement, “bump stocks” have been in heavy demand. Anecdotal reports suggest a buying spree, essentially similar to the run on guns after any number of mass shooting tragedies has led to talk about gun control.
The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – which just sponsored the 32nd annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in Dallas, Texas – issued a joint statement that reflects the NRA sentiment.
“The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms support a productive dialogue concerning ‘bump stocks,’ National Concealed Carry Reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act.
“We recognize that banning firearms accessories is not a solution to violent crime.”
What all three gun rights organizations have done may put Congressional anti-gunners and gun prohibition lobbying groups on the spot. In order to get something, they may have to offer serious concessions to the firearms community in return.
Ironically, the focus on bump stocks comes simultaneously to the District of Columbia’s announcement that it will not appeal its court loss on concealed carry to the U.S. Supreme Court in a SAF case known as Wrenn v. District of Columbia last week. The city’s “good cause” requirement was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court of Appeals in July and last month, that court declined a request from the city for an en banc hearing.
Had the city appealed, it risked losing not only its case, but also the potential for knocking out similar laws in several states including California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New York and New Jersey.
“We believe the city was under intense pressure to take the hit and not appeal the ruling by the U.S. District Court of Appeals,” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said in a prepared statement. “If the District had lost the case before the high court, it would have dealt a fatal blow to similar requirements in (various states) and that prospect had anti-gun politicians in those states quaking in their shoes.”
